Legal Opinion

Siblik v. Motor Transport Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1952PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Defendants contend that at the time in question plaintiff was an employee of the Transport Company and that, therefore, his exclusive remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He went to the aid of Walters at the direction of the Tube Company’s foreman, he had been previously directed by the warehouse foreman to aid truck drivers to move stalled truck's and had done so, the assistance was not rendered upon a public highway but upon the premises of the Tube Company, and it was to the interest of the Tube Company to get the truck away from the dock to make room for other trucks which…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Osborne v. MontgomeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Butts v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Bethke v. DuweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Gvora v. CarlsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Jansen v. HerkertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Braun v. JewettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Springfield Lumber, Feed & Fuel Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API